There were only two example. The first occurred in the training grounds when Odin was lecturing Thor about focusing on what was right in front of him in Asgard. The second was when Sif called Thor out for being MIA all the time.

Regardless, there's no love story there. Thor does not care for Sif in that way so how could they take it further? Nowhere in the film does Thor reciprocate any veiled affection.

There is no love story there, and if would be nice if that was explored, with Sif being a more sympathetic character. The devil's in the details and it does't mean it'll drive the story forward. It would be nice touch of they made confront Thor finally about it, and Thor rejecting her. Kinda like 'Some Kind of Wonderful', Asgardian style.

And it gives Sif something more to do rather just fighting.

__________________"Benicio Del Toro is up-and-coming...and this (movie) could be his breakthrough role."

There is no love story there, and if would be nice if that was explored, with Sif being a more sympathetic character. The devil's in the details and it does't mean it'll drive the story forward. It would be nice touch of they made confront Thor finally about it, and Thor rejecting her. Kinda like 'Some Kind of Wonderful', Asgardian style.

And it gives Sif something more to do rather just fighting.

You may have wanted to see that, but when we're talking about what we didn't like about the film we have to judge that by what was actually in it and how it was executed.

I don't understand what the movie gains by carrying it out further and needing Thor to actually sit Sif down to say, "Look hoe, I don't want you." LOL ..... doesn't serve the movie in any way shape or form.

They hint at Sif's feelings and it's something they can very well explore down the road. They leave the door open .... if we go with your version of the movie, they cut that possibility off.

There is no love story there, and if would be nice if that was explored, with Sif being a more sympathetic character. The devil's in the details and it does't mean it'll drive the story forward. It would be nice touch of they made confront Thor finally about it, and Thor rejecting her. Kinda like 'Some Kind of Wonderful', Asgardian style.

And it gives Sif something more to do rather just fighting.

Definitely agree. I noticed Jaimie Alexander said they filmed more dealing with the love triangle, but it was axed in the editing room. It sounds like one of the casualties Taylor didn't agree with.

I'm sensing a little defensiveness here. It's not like this would make or break the film anyway.

Defensiveness? Have you not read my review?

I'm far from defending this movie just for the sake of doing so. But I see criticisms from time to time that are purely just "wants" .... has nothing to do with the success or lackthereof when it comes to how the film played out.

Definitely agree. I noticed Jaimie Alexander said they filmed more dealing with the love triangle, but it was axed in the editing room. It sounds like one of the casualties Taylor didn't agree with.

You're right.

We need more exposition of Frigga's funeral so people could be convinced certain characters actually felt the impact. Then we need more of Sif displaying the jealous "Please love me instead of her!" act. We also needed more development for Malekith's motivations. We needed more of the Warriors 3 ......

C'mon people ..... seriously. If they caved to all these "we need MOAR!!!" the movie would be insanely long. Something like Mal's motivations is far more important that Sif being in love with Thor. It's unimportant to the story. It's just a fanboy want.

We need more exposition of Frigga's funeral so people could be convinced certain characters actually felt the impact. Then we need more of Sif displaying the jealous "Please love me instead of her!" act. We also needed more development for Malekith's motivations. We needed more of the Warriors 3 ......

C'mon people ..... seriously. If they caved to all these "we need MOAR!!!" the movie would be insanely long. Something like Mal's motivations is far more important that Sif being in love with Thor. It's unimportant to the story. It's just a fanboy want.

Yeah, you're not being defensive at all. I didn't like how this aspect of the movie was handled (am I in the wrong thread?). There is virtually no difference between me saying that and you saying "Bor had a major presence (wish we could've gotten so much more of him)" or complaining about Thor's moping not being a more central arc. But by all means, dismiss my opinion as unimportant fanboy want.

For the record, I thought the funeral was great and conveyed the gravity of the situation. Malekith was frankly uninteresting to me.

Do we know all that was cut out? I do remember an interview Taylor gave recently that said there were a lot more scenes of the kids finding the weird anomalies in the beginning. That there were more scenes that showed the wonder of it all. But being honest I think what we got in the film was sufficient. I wouldn't want to see more scenes devoted to that part of the film, so cutting those scenes don't see to be a loss.

Do we know all that was cut out? I do remember an interview Taylor gave recently that said there were a lot more scenes of the kids finding the weird anomalies in the beginning. That there were more scenes that showed the wonder of it all. But being honest I think what we got in the film was sufficient. I wouldn't want to see more scenes devoted to that part of the film, so cutting those scenes don't see to be a loss.

Eccelston said: “There was a scene where Malekith was in a certain area of Svartalfheim and remembering his children, his wife and children bathing there, and they had been lost to him. And some of the actions of Odin’s father, Bor, also. There was an extended scene with Anthony Hopkins where they discussed what had caused this ancient grievance between The Dark Elves and themselves. That kind of material. More character-related, yeah.”

Eccelston said: “There was a scene where Malekith was in a certain area of Svartalfheim and remembering his children, his wife and children bathing there, and they had been lost to him. And some of the actions of Odin’s father, Bor, also. There was an extended scene with Anthony Hopkins where they discussed what had caused this ancient grievance between The Dark Elves and themselves. That kind of material. More character-related, yeah.”

I created a new thread Thor: TDW Blu-ray Deleted Scenes Speculation & Discussion Thread which will be great for stuff like this...

I didn't like that Darcy's "intern" managed to be shown lifting a car and smashing it over some Elves (due to gravity distortion, true) but we hardly see Thor shown to be a physically powerful character. Did he perform one great feat without the hammer in this film? It's why I was not exited or impressed with the beatdown Kurse gave him in the film. Thor was not shown to be impressively strong in the first place. Seeing him pummeled without his hammer seemed par for the course to the audience. If they had shown how physically powerful Thor was before, the Kurse scenes would pop more on screen.

__________________My father. 1946-2014

He truly proved that every person has the potential to be a force for good in this life. So anyone that reads this, do me a favor... Call your parents.

- The Sif/Jane relationship could have had one scene.
- Loki's death scene could have been more dramatic instead of rushed. That would have made me think "Wow, Loki is actually about to be killed off" instead of "Seriously? I know he isn't going to go out like that."
- Loki seemed to be the only person to be affected by Frigga's death. A thirty second scene with Thor and Odin would have been sufficient.
- Thor didn't seem to care too much after Loki died. Again, a scene with Jane comforting Thor would have sufficed.
- Selvig's spears were a little jarring.
- Malekith should not have had the rumored scenes cut. His villain needed to be fleshed out.
- Thor and Jane's relationship could have been fleshed out more. They were in such puppy love that it was unbelievable. They hadn't seen each other in two years and only had known each other for three days.
- A scene could have been used to explain how the Bifröst was restored. One of the best scenes of the first film was that Thor destroyed it in order to save his enemies. It was already a little sketchy how Thor returns to Earth in The Avengers. Without any explanation, the significance of the ending of Thor is cheapened. All that was needed was a 1 to 2 minute scene.

One may have noticed a common theme in all of my complaints. The film was under 2 hours. Honestly, an extra 10 or 15 minutes would have done wonders. I don't understand.

- The Sif/Jane relationship could have had one scene.
- Loki's death scene could have been more dramatic instead of rushed. That would have made me think "Wow, Loki is actually about to be killed off" instead of "Seriously? I know he isn't going to go out like that."
- Loki seemed to be the only person to be affected by Frigga's death. A thirty second scene with Thor and Odin would have been sufficient.
- Thor didn't seem to care too much after Loki died. Again, a scene with Jane comforting Thor would have sufficed.
- Selvig's spears were a little jarring.
- Malekith should not have had the rumored scenes cut. His villain needed to be fleshed out.
- Thor and Jane's relationship could have been fleshed out more. They were in such puppy love that it was unbelievable. They hadn't seen each other in two years and only had known each other for three days.
- A scene could have been used to explain how the Bifröst was restored. One of the best scenes of the first film was that Thor destroyed it in order to save his enemies. It was already a little sketchy how Thor returns to Earth in The Avengers. Without any explanation, the significance of the ending of Thor is cheapened. All that was needed was a 1 to 2 minute scene.

One may have noticed a common theme in all of my complaints. The film was under 2 hours. Honestly, an extra 10 or 15 minutes would have done wonders. I don't understand.

Not only that. Remove unnecessary characters such as Darcy and whatever the name of her intern was and you have another 15-30 minutes.

I'm only left to guess that they just weren't interested in fleshing things out more.

I didn't like that Darcy's "intern" managed to be shown lifting a car and smashing it over some Elves (due to gravity distortion, true) but we hardly see Thor shown to be a physically powerful character. Did he perform one great feat without the hammer in this film? It's why I was not exited or impressed with the beatdown Kurse gave him in the film. Thor was not shown to be impressively strong in the first place. Seeing him pummeled without his hammer seemed par for the course to the audience. If they had shown how physically powerful Thor was before, the Kurse scenes would pop more on screen.

That is true. Granted, we're supposed to assume that because they are aliens (Asguardians, Dark Elves, Frost Giants, etc.), they are stronger than humans. However, Thor hasn't necessarily shown too many feats of strength without his hammer. Hell, his fight with Malekith unfortunately made it seem like Thor can hardly hold his own with Mjolnir.

The strongest thing we've seen Thor do without Mjolnir was holding up (with both arms and on his knees, btw) Hulk's arm.

Not only that. Remove unnecessary characters such as Darcy and whatever the name of her intern was and you have another 15-30 minutes.

I'm only left to guess that they just weren't interested in fleshing things out more.

Which is unfortunate.

Darcy was just fine in the first film. I understood the need for the comic relief since the concept of Thor is a little out there. But now he's established. The amount of Darcy in this film was unnecessary. And then adding the intern was just salt on the wound. While we're at it, the amount of comic relief in general was too much and was poorly placed within scenes. Why even hire Alan Taylor if the film was going to be more lighthearted than the first?

- A scene could have been used to explain how the Bifröst was restored. One of the best scenes of the first film was that Thor destroyed it in order to save his enemies. It was already a little sketchy how Thor returns to Earth in The Avengers. Without any explanation, the significance of the ending of Thor is cheapened. All that was needed was a 1 to 2 minute scene.

I agree with this because in the Prelude comic for TDW it said that Heimdall used The Tesseract to rebuild the bridge. That's great for people who bought that comic, but for the general audience and even some of the fans, they don't know that, so yeah a short 1 or 2 showing or explaining would have been good.

But to be honest, there was a lot of exposition in the first act already, so this could of added to that and slowed the first act even more, but I think they could have done it in a quick flashback maybe to show the audience rather than a character talking about it.

I would of liked to have seen The Tesseract in person though because it was a huge deal in Cap 1 and Avengers and even though it got mentioned once, I would of liked to have seen it.

Darcy was just fine in the first film. I understood the need for the comic relief since the concept of Thor is a little out there. But now he's established. The amount of Darcy in this film was unnecessary. And then adding the intern was just salt on the wound. While we're at it, the amount of comic relief in general was too much and was poorly placed within scenes. Why even hire Alan Taylor if the film was going to be more lighthearted than the first?

Again, 100% agreed. Only thing I don't agree with is that Darcy wasn't necessary at all in Thor 1. All the fish-out-of-the-water situations in the first movie with Thor were enough.

If at least they had come out with something really good for Darcy to say. But in a world with The Simpsons, South Park or Seinfeld, coming up with mispronouncing "Mjolnir" is just poor. And extremely so.

Hmmm, I see a lot of, "they should have" and "it needed" instead of, "in my opinion." Let's not forget, the people who worked on this movie are paid to do so and probably have a hell of a lot more experience than we do. It's like when people are armchair coaches and yell at the TV during a sports game, telling the coach and players what should happen.

This is all want vs need. And since no one here seems to be a movie director/producer/writer/special effects guru, etc etc, it's all just want. No one here seems qualified to make the "need" call.